Tuesday, January 26, 2016

MANSFIELD, RICHLAND CO OH - RAINA DESCHNER, 19, A MOTHER AND OWNER OF 1 PIT "TOOK IN HER HOME AND CARED FOR" A SECOND STRAY PIT - THEN ALLOWED THEM BOTH TO RUN LOOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ATTACK A 10-YEAR-OLD GIRL

A 10-year-old girl was taken to the hospital Monday after she was chased and attacked by two dogs on Belmont Avenue. A witness told Richland County Sheriff's deputies he saw TWO PIT BULL DOGS begin to chase the girl, who was walking with friends, around 3 p.m. Monday. The dogs then viciously attack the girl, knocking her to the ground and then climbing onto her and continuing the attack, according to the witness. The girl was bitten in the right arm and scratched on her left side before she was able to get up and run into her residence. The witness then chased the dogs away with a shovel.Madison Township EMS treated the girl for her injuries and took her to Ohio Health Mansfield Hospital for minor to moderate injuries, according to the sheriff's office report.The witness described the dogs as PIT BULLS, one of them black and the other black with some white. The black and white dog was the one that bit the girl, according to Richland County Dog Warden Dave Jordan. While officers were chasing and attempting to catch the dogs, a sergeant with the sheriff's department attempted to tase the black dog, which was being aggressive toward him, but the taser was not effective and the dog continued to run. The Richland County Dog Warden's office located the black and white dog at 1018 Burger Ave. and found it belonged to RAINA DESCHNER, 19, a resident at the same address. Deschner told officials she also cares for the other dog that is known as a stray in the neighborhood.The warden charged Deschner with two counts of having a dog at large and one count of having a dog without a license.He also deemed the black and white female dog dangerous, requiring the owner to follow numerous containment laws. The dog must be muzzled and kept on a leash no longer than six feet. Signs warning of a dangerous dog must be posted on the property, and the dog must be micro-chipped. The owner also must purchase a special dangerous dog license.The county health department is following up to make sure the dog does not have rabies, Jordan said, adding that there was no evidence to indicate the dog was rabid and the owner claimed the dog was current on its vaccinations.JORDAN SAID DESCHNER WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR HER DOG ACTED AGGRESSIVELY AS IT DOES NOT ACT THAT WAY IN HER HOME.....WHERE SHE HAS CHILDREN.The warden advised Deschner it is not uncommon for dogs to act differently out of the home and warned her of the dangers of letting the dog loose again. While the charges for a first offense are minor misdemeanors, the severity of charges increases on the second offense.Jordan said the black stray dog remained at large Tuesday, and is being treated as a dangerous dog until authorities can prove otherwise. The warden's office received a tip the dog was seen on Belmont Avenue Tuesday afternoon, but the dog could not be located.Jordan said under state law, Deschner qualifies as a keeper and harborer of the stray dog because she admitted to allowing it into her home and feeding it and she never reported the dog to the warden's office. The dog may or may not have another owner, Jordan said, and anyone with information about an owner of the black dog or the whereabouts of the dog is asked to call the dog warden's office at (419) 774-5892.http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2016/01/26/pit-bulls-attack-bite-girl/79356746/

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.